Plane Stupid : Plane Pointless
Posted by keith on March 7th, 2008
“…said representatives of the campaign group, Plane Stupid.” The words fell out of the mouth of Jeremy Paxman, the UK’s most acerbic newsreader, like a river of foul-tasting spittle. I know how he feels.
With aircraft emissions rising exponentially, promising to undo any carbon reduction measures that governments put in place because they fawn in the face of business might and the “right” of people in the industrial West to fly, you would think that a key enemy of the environmental movement would be the entire flying culture. But we see Sierra Club sending their supporters around the world by plane, government ministers and their advisers flying by their thousands to “environmental” conferences, and (I have it on good authority) leaders of mainstream environmental organisations taking holidays across the world by jet because…well, I can’t think of an acceptable excuse – can you?
Then we have Plane Stupid: the brainchild of a number Climate Camp protestors along with Greenpeace staffers, who have been in the press recently for unfurling a couple of banners on top of the Houses of Parliament, and who are now organising a “flash mob” for the grand opening of Heathrow Terminal 5 (see above, sort of ;-) ).
“Be at T5 International Arrivals at 11am to put on (or strip to reveal) your brightly coloured ‘STOP AIRPORT EXPANSION’ t-shirt: a visible presence of public opposition to the madness of airport expansion. Wander round, have a coffee, leave when you like.” (from http://t5flashmob.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/flashmobflyer2.pdf)
You may well ask me: “What’s wrong with that?” Nothing, actually, if there was any chance of any of this activity making any difference whatsoever. As I have written on The Earth Blog:
“It becomes increasingly clear – the more you look at them – that most of the campaigns fought by large environmental groups not only sit squarely in the comfort zone of that group’s supporters and leaders, but also conveniently sit in the comfort zones of the very companies and governments the campaigns are targeted at.”
Where, in any of Plane Stupid’s materials, in anything they say in the media (after all, media attention is what they crave) is a direct call for the public to stop flying NOW because if they don’t stop then the airports will keep expanding, the planes will keep flying and the Earth will keep heating? Where is the advice to keep on at your friends and relatives to stop their senseless airbound journeys? Why are the media who promote air travel not being attacked for being tools of industry?
I’ll tell you why.
It’s because organisations like Plane Stupid / Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth, Sierra Club, WWF are scared of alienating their audience, their friends in the media and, most of all, their own people who still can’t bear to admit that they are as much a part of the machine as big business. I know people who have been sacked from and ostracised by these organisations for daring to suggest that protests, petitions, banners and marches don’t work. They don’t, and neither do Flash Mobs.
And the sad thing is, the organisations know it – but still won’t admit that they have wasted decades trying to do things the nice way.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:55 am
[…] [read more at The Unsuitablog] […]
March 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Not to mention the fact that many of the people in the hierarchies of the environmental groups have “lifestyles” that aren’t exactly exemplars of virtue.
When I worked at the BBC a few years back, I can only remember one environmental activist turning up at TV Centre on his pushbike. A few came by Tube, which is okay, but most came by taxi—”we’re busy people with a world to change so we have to use the most convenient means”.
It’s like Communist leaders in reverse. Instead of saying “one day all workers will drive Mercedes” to justify driving one, the leaders of the green movement espouse “one day we can all get rid of our cars” while still using them to get about themselves.
But elites always exempt themselves from the rules they apply to everyone else and the environmental movement’s leaders usually drawn from the rich, urban and suburban elites they supposedly criticise for their lack of action and profligate lifestyles.
Still, lamp posts are a traditional treatment for privileged elites but if we’re going to keep with the times I suppose we could substitute wind turbines instead…
March 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Good comment, Stonehead. Particularly like the last line – but, of course, I could never advocate something so fitting in public…
;-)
March 12th, 2008 at 6:19 am
[…] more at The Unsuitablog] Bookmark and Share This Page | « […]
March 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Aviation is an easy target for luddities who claim to be on the side of the planet. Of course it contributes to pollution but no where near as much as road or UK housing. Globally it’s 3% CO2. . Shame that Plane Stupid fans don’t update their website to keep up with the news (eg: GEN2 sustainable bio jetfuel research). It seems that instead of bringing on honest debate they want to polarise the masses with distorted information. They never list the CO2 involved in building railways or new roads.
EG: Compared to 10 years ago aircraft noise has reduced massively through he introduction of extremely tight regulations (Chapter 3 and beyond), but housing developments keep on being built near airports! Bristol Filton is a classic example – look at how many buildings have been built in the flight path since the 1970s. I wonder how many trees were felled to build those houses?
March 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
The greens and now the conservatives can’t see the wood for the trees! So much for the latter’s new logo!
Cutting down on runway infrastructure will increase pollution! Aviation is the life blood to the UK economy and hundreds of other nations – especially poorer ones. Take away air freight and millions of farmers suffer worldwide.
Having aeroplanes circling in the hold burning tonnes of Jet A1 fuel at their most inefficient altitudes is a far worse for the environment and air quality and local noise than giving them a 2 mile piece of tarmac to land on.
The cost of producing a mile of high speed rail track (186mph) track is £73.5 million per mile and a 3 lane motorway (70mph) is £28.4 million per mile.
The environmental impact of building/revising rail lines to cope with high speed trains is rarely considered in the public domain.
Even eco warrior George Monbiot agrees that flying is more carbon efficient than a high speed train from London to Edinburgh:
Assuming we had the infrastructure (which we cannot afford!) a fast train traveling at 350kph would use the quivalent energy of 22 litres per seat. Today’s Airbus A321 would use 20 littres per seat on the same journey and travels at 900 kph !
Oxford university Environmental Change institute said it is more polluting to travel by Eurostar London to Paris than to go by cheap flight!
How about a journey from Manchester to Guernsey:
A Saab 340 turbo prop aeroplane produces 103kg per passenger on that route. A Nissan Micra on the same route would push out 226 kg with one on board.
Target the BIG issues like household energy use , loft insulation, car emissions first and use any green taxes to help develop green technology to improve homes and transport.
2005: UK CO2 emissions:
Road: 120 million tonnes
Energy industries: 208 million tonnes (and we don’t have electric cars yet!)
Industry: 99 million tonnes
Residential: 83 million tonnes
Public sector/commercial: 46 million tonnes
Aviation: 8 million tonnes !
March 17th, 2008 at 7:07 am
This sounds like the arguments of industry funded groups like Transport Watch, but with little solid evidence to back it up. As it happens I am no great fan of George Monbiot’s worldview – he also thinks global problems can be solved by working within the system, he is *not* an eco warrior – but his figures on high-speed rail may be accurate with a dirty coal-burning electricity system: move this to renewables and the train becomes much cleaner, simple.
– Turbo props. I agree, so why doesn’t the air industry use them? Because they are not fast enough to satisfy the JIT economy.
– Bio jet fuels. Even 100% biofuel would be horrendously polluting as all biofuels require massive energy inputs, as well as emissions caused by biomass losses from land clearance. And would you prefer to eat or fly : it’s a real choice.
– Stacked aircraft. Wouldn’t be a problem if they weren’t in the air.
– Economics. A net drain on the UK economy due to net outgoing tourism.
– Noise. Largely irrelevant. Annoying, but not a source of pollution.
I do know the figures, thank you. The hypocrisy, though, is shrill in the air industry, so I am happy to attack them (as well as Plane Stupid, who were the actual target of my piece).
Keith
March 18th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
What on earth are you talking about?
Plane Stupid is a small grassroots direct action group. You seem to have confused us with WWF. We’re all volunteers apart from X who does the admin and gets paid peanuts to travel the country (by train and bicycle) trying to build a movement to take radical action on climate change.
Nor are we organising the flashmob (that would be http://www.stopairportexpansion.org/) although expressing dissent in whatever way people choose to is perfectly valid and deserves respect.
None of us fly any more. I’ve got nothing to do with Greenpeace, and Plane Stupid don’t believe marching is much use either; http://www.newstatesman.com/200611060014
Here’s me telling people to stop flying;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSyXbL7VZ9k
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=plane+stupid+itv+airbus&search_type=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZKHxRj9vGs
here’s malc and josh telling people to stop flying
http://www.channel4.com/more4/news/news-opinion-feature.jsp?id=544
I could go on
But this is not the most important message that needs to be put across to prevent catastrophic climate change, and plays into the obvious and deliberate trap set by the constant framing of the debate in terms of individual consumer choice. Changes in individual consumer choice will not be enough to achieve the cuts we need; this is why we campaign for massive changes to the conditions of choice instead.
Our campaign is based firmly on the science of climate change; if we banned short haul flights tomorrow, we could begin to scale back airport capacity in line with the reductions in emissions this science demands. The most recent science around emissions trajectories, critical thresholds, climate sensitivity and target concentrations of co2e is extremely worrying and we may well need to revisit our campaign demands in light of this work. For an easy to understand precis see http://www.carbonequity.info/climatecodered/index.html.
Although I doubt you will bother to follow any of these links, judging by the extremely poor standard of research displayed in the wilfully ignorant polemic above. Did you even bother to visit our website? Did you read anything on it? Or did you just look at the pretty pictures and decide we were a ‘big environmental organisation?’ (I’ll admit it’s a hot website, but that’s just because y is an incredibly dedicated web activist. We get no funding for that.)
I have personally gone out and put my neck on the line in a very meaningful, physical way that has caused me great personal inconvenience and discomfort and brought me into conflict with the law, under the banner of Plane Stupid, in order to try to help prevent catastrophic climate change. So have a whole load of other people. That is the point of our organisation. W*****s like you who sit at their computer and do bugger all but whinge make my blood boil.
Pointless? Say that to my face you muppet. You know where to find me.
Leo
http://www.planestupid.com
March 18th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Hi Keith,
You’re more than welcome to attack us, but please don’t accuse us of not saying that people shouldn’t fly.
Plane Stupid has never held back from saying that we need to reduce the amount we fly. Check (our website out if you don’t believe me.
Cheers,
Rich
March 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Some excellent points Keith- lucky you are such a sad single web-footed minger, otherwise the sexy people in Plane Stupid would surely be panicking by now- ‘ooo Keith, I sooo outdone by your ingenius arguments! Do me, now!!!!’
March 19th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Comments 8, 9 and 10 by Plane Stupid members. Where to start?
Interestingly the Unsuitablog item was not couched in insulting and personal terms, unlike these comments. So when Leo makes a comment tantamount to a physical threat then you do wonder why a small article on an insignificant website run by a w****r who sits at his computer (strange assumption, clearly anyone who writes isn’t doing anything else…) would stir up so much bile.
Where did I say that Plane Stupid members are flying? I know that Sierra Club promote flying, and I know that Greenpeace executives fly, and that’s what I wrote.
So, Plane Stupid, I will repeat my questions:
“Where, in any of Plane Stupid’s materials, in anything they say in the media (after all, media attention is what they crave) is a direct call for the public to stop flying NOW because if they don’t stop then the airports will keep expanding, the planes will keep flying and the Earth will keep heating? Where is the advice to keep on at your friends and relatives to stop their senseless airbound journeys? Why are the media who promote air travel not being atacked for being tools of industry?” Where, on your website, do you explicitly tell people not to fly? I have looked, as I did before.
Accepted, some of the links do make appeals for people to stop flying, but they still pointedly do not attack the individual who chooses to fly. Nor do they attack advertising, nor do they attack the capitalist machine that brainwashes people into flying, nor do they attack the entire culture of consumption that inculcates us with the idea that people have the right to use resources and produce waste indefinitely.
Symbolic actions, whether marches, unfurling banners, sitting on runways, locking on to the doors of air travel companies or even self-immolation may raise awareness, but they still are all within the comfort zone of the culture and do not upset the system one jot. The nature of an action, however brave or foolish is not relevant if it does not strike at the cause of the problem.
I will hold my hands up in submission if I find that anything Plane Stupid, or any other mainstream organisation has done (Plane Stupid has been heavily infiltrated by Greenpeace) through symbolic action has made a real difference. Any more difference than me sitting at my computer (amongst other things).
March 19th, 2008 at 4:06 am
You could have just been big about it and apologised for writing a misleading blog based on a basket of lazy assumptions and misunderstandings about who we are and what we do; yet you’ve barely admitted that you were wrong about almost everything you said about us.
More worryingly, you seem to be proposing violent struggle against the ‘capitalist machine’ by dismissing all of our peaceful actions as ‘within the comfort zone of the culture’ and which ‘do not upset the system one jot’; if chaining ourselves to corporate targets and getting arrested is ‘the nice way’, please explain what exactly it is that you are suggesting instead. Please try to be explicit. Because beyond peaceful direct action, all we are left with recourse to is violence.
But in the same breath you don’t seem too keen on that, since you castigate me for implying that I am offering you out. So which is it? Let’s have some clarity.
Personally I abhor violence in all its forms which is why I am totally committed to non-violence in the actions I take to confront the powerful vested interests driving us towards ecogeddon. But if you’re really that keen on it, I guess I can make an exception in your case. Your arguments are hogwash so why not settle it with a punch-up. Maybe afterwards you’ll want to reconsider your position on peaceful direct action.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Violence against the person can be acceptable, it depends on the motivation. If someone threatened my family I would be violent as necessary…extrapolate that to wherever you want. Violence against the system in all of its guises is perfectly acceptable: in fact it is not possible to commit violence against something that isn’t sentient. “Totally committed” and “non-violence” together don’t compute : as you have said (jokingly or otherwise) there are always exceptions. I recommend you read http://earth-blog.bravejournal.com/entry/22804.
I was going to contact you directly for a chat, but as you seem keen to make a personal point physically it will be pointless: also, why do you assume you would win? When you have read Endgame by Derrick Jensen and/or Pacifism As Pathology by Ward Churchill then we can talk.
I have made one correction to the article in the third paragraph. The rest is staying as it is either fact or analysis.
As to what I am suggesting is done instead: realise that working with the culture of consumption, trying to change it within its own context is not going to work; it will still be what it is – you cannot turn an apple into an orange without some drastic genetic engineering, after which you will be left with an orange, not a former apple. The clues are in the articles on The Earth Blog – the work is happening at the moment. If you want to be part of it then you will know what to do.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Look, I’m making a rhetorical point here, I don’t really want a punch-up (my mates at PS asked me to clarify this!) and I appreciate that you have now tried to make your position clear. But you haven’t succeeded. Your first example is simple self-defence and any court would agree. Your second is a non-sequitur; it seems you agree with Plane Stupid about the fact that there is no such thing as violence against property, only against sentient beings. So if that’s not violence, what kind of violence is it that you are suggesting?
I’ve read some of your earthblog posts. Plane Stupid was inspired by Earthfirst, and loads of people who’ve got nicked on PS actions have also been arrested at Radley Lakes. So what exactly makes people working under a PS banner appropriate targets for your polemic, while the same people taking action at Radley lakes get lauded? We’re quite obviously on the same side, and doing exactly the same sort of stuff. That’s why I was so enraged by your unprovoked and totally baseless attack on us.
Then, after I put you straight about the inaccuracies in your first blog, rather than hold your hands up to it, you trot out a bunch more straw men to knock over; I’m on record, with my Plane Stupid hat on, banging on and on about advertising (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2-xZEp4xCo) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE8NW9ZN43Y), and making explicit criticisms of the ideology of consumerism too (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0NxRjIzthfk&feature=PlayList&p=69A98AF6359C766E&index=0)
What more do you want from us? I’m on police bail right now for christ’s sake.
The project of having a go at eco-hypocrites in your blog seems worthwhile, and as I skimmed through your online material I found almost nothing I disagree with. Just please try to choose your targets more carefully. If you think having a go at Plane Stupid for – actually, I’m still not sure exactly what you were having a go at us about, since as I’ve shown, everything you said about us is basically wrong – well, anyway, my point is that having a go at us for made up criticisms is not helping to stop catastrophic climate change. It’s not helping build a movement for radical action either. I presume from the content of your earthblog that these are both things you want, so try to think before you type in future.
Feel free to contact me directly for a chat. Promise not to give you a slap.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Leo
My criticisms are of Plane Stupid’s symbolic actions, in particular the Flash Mob – that is what stirred my ire: I genuinely believe these actions will change nothing, and I have all the evidence on my side to show that this is the likely outcome (see Ward Churchill’s research). I genuinely believe that symbolic actions are making things worse as they lead people to believe something is being done when it is just playing into the hands of the authorities. How many environmental campaigners have actually been incarcerated in the UK longer than the statutory 28 days? It is a game that business and government loves playing because they aren’t really being threatened.
On a personal level I am sure we have plenty in common (I’m glad you’ve taken the time to read my stuff) and any antagonism can be put to good use if focussed in the right place. I’ll leave it a while for things to simmer down, though. You really should read Endgame if you haven’t, or watch the videos here:
Endgame : Part One
Endgame : Part Two
Keith
March 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
[…] Read more at: Unsuitablog […]
March 25th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Keith, PS is not organising the Flash Mob on its own. The Flash Mob is being organised by a number of grassroots groups, and is designed to offer an easy way for local residents to join forces with environmentalists to oppose T5. It’s not designed to be the ultimate solution to climate change, or runway expansion, but to bring together two groups who could benefit from some joint working.
If you can think of a better way to encourage people who are not politically active to start EF! type activities then you’re welcome to suggest them – or better yet, leave the keyboard and go out and do them. “Action is the essence of all”, and all that…
R
March 25th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Believe me, Richard, I do a lot more than sit at my keyboard. Most of it will never be known about. Politics is not the answer, it has always failed the people. Angry people have the answers in them already – they just need to understand who caused the problems and how to pull the rug from under them. Most people will do nothing – that doesn’t matter, they will have no choice eventually for many different reasons.
You know how to contact me if you want to know more: and are really determined to fix things.
K.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:51 am
[…] welcome side-effect, which ironically had nothing to do with the Flash Mob third runway protesters, is that the 34 cancelled flights at Heathrow yesterday prevented around […]
April 4th, 2008 at 5:41 am
[…] welcome side-effect, which ironically had nothing to do with the Flash Mob third runway protesters, is that the 34 cancelled flights at Heathrow yesterday prevented around […]
October 6th, 2008 at 11:12 am
SCREW GREENPEACE THEY ARE ABSOLUTLY THE MOST STUPID IDEAS AROUND AND THEY ARE STUPID AS WELL
October 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
@ecotek, re. comments 5 & 6
Manchester to Guernsey –
You’re not comparing like with like. Your SF340 figure is per seat. The equivalent figure for the Micra would be the figure you quote, divided by four. Are you deliberately twisting facts? Or are you stupid?
You -assumed- the Micra had only the driver, plus 3 empty seats. Just like you -assumed- (as far as I can tell) that every seat in the Saab was occupied. Because we all know that airlines routinely, consistently operate on 100% load factors, don’t we? (And that all of them really -need- to travel, & none have been persuaded to make extra trips by deeply discounted ticket offers, because airline seats are perishable goods and…never mind. That’s a separate argument).
It is possible that your figures are based on some other, more realistic load factor, in which case I apologise. But only a bit, because a) you don’t specify what load factor you’ve used and b) what sort of moron tries to justify air travel on the basis that driving to an island emits more carbon? Even I will admit that going to Guernsey by plane is better than going by Nissan Micra, because Nissan Micras are not very good in open water. I used to own one, and so I know from personal experience that I definitely wouldn’t want to drive one across the world’s busiest shipping lane.
You’re wrong about Filton, as well. There was no reason to oppose housebuilding near the airport until at least the early ’90s, maybe later, because until then it was a very little used private airfield for the aircraft factory it stood beside. There was no reason at the time to expect significant commercial traffic to develop..
“Take away air freight and millions of farmers suffer worldwide.”
Don’t tell me, let me guess. I call it carbon dioxide, but you call it life.